Carl Lawson posts cryptic tweet

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2021, 12:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: Because sacks are a fan friendly stat but one that doesn’t actually mean much. It doesn’t mean they even really won their matchup just that they were the last guy to touch the QB before he went down, or even ran out of bounds behind the LoS.

Some of the advanced stuff that looks at how guys get sacks is really interesting. There are some guys, take Maxx Crosby a couple years ago, who actually rarely ever won the match up but instead QBs ran into him at an insanely high rate or he actually would get blocked into the QB. That’s why people tend to like “win rate” as the fact the QB may run away from the pass rusher to the weaker rusher side doesn’t mean the player didn’t do their job.

Um, it means a ton if you care about your defense stopping offenses and giving your offense the ball. Can't find the reddit thing I was reading about it, but they looked at a whole season's worth of sacks (something like over 1,100).

Well over 80% of drives with a sack don't get a first down after the sack.

If the sack is for a bigger loss than 5 yards, that number goes up to almost 90%

Sacks are absolute drive killers, yet Lawson only has 11.5 sacks in the 3 years since his rookie year, and just 2 in the 12 games since he became the starter. There's a reason why people pay for that "fan friendly stat" and it's not because ti doesn't actually mean much.

Win rate is just the NFL version of FIP. Trying to assign what-could-have-beens and what-should-have-beens to players instead of accepting the reality of what did. Should-have-beens and could-have-beens don't win games. You "win" your pass rush but the QB still throws a TD down the field because you didn't take him down, you didn't actually "win" your pass rush.